Should the USGA stop the "Arms Race"?

[Tom_Doak]

It occurred to me, in seeing the title of this thread, that most "arms races" are sold under the guise of protecting us from menace ... in an advertising campaign paid for by the arms manufacturers.

[jeffwarne]

Tom Doak,

Well said and well done for not being scared to stand up for what you believe in. It's easy for someone like me because I don't rely on the industry for pay cheques.


What happened to the notion that a sport should have a governing body which should be free to make decisions for the greater good of that game which might actually conflict with the ideals of naked consumerism? And when did even suggesting simply that become controversial or quirky or idealistic left wing bullshit?

Well said indeed.
that said, the governing bodies lose a LOT of credibility by banning an innovation of technique that leads to NO altering of classic courses or real estate expansion, while allowing hot equipment that fundamentally changes the game and subsequently its fields of play.
Imagine how much better the game will be with Bernhard Langer and Adam Scott neutered
But not even a majority here (a pretty sophisticated audience) support a rollback as everyone worries about how it affects them or has their head completely in the sand.

[BCowan]

Tom Doak,

Well said and well done for not being scared to stand up for what you believe in. It's easy for someone like me because I don't rely on the industry for pay cheques.


What happened to the notion that a sport should have a governing body which should be free to make decisions for the greater good of that game which might actually conflict with the ideals of naked consumerism? And when did even suggesting simply that become controversial or quirky or idealistic left wing bullshit?

Well said indeed.
that said, the governing bodies lose a LOT of credibility by banning an innovation of technique that leads to NO altering of classic courses or real estate expansion, while allowing hot equipment that fundamentally changes the game and subsequently its fields of play.
Imagine how much better the game will be with Bernhard Langer and Adam Scott neutered
But not even a majority here (a pretty sophisticated audience) support a rollback as everyone worries about how it affects them or has their head completely in the sand.

So the numbers of players would decrease if Bernie and Adam weren't winning with the cheaterstick?  I didn't think anyone was bigger than the game of golf, but I guess I'm wrong.  I support what i think is common sense.  Pro's using persimmons woods, a Pro V doesn't go much farther than 280 with a persimmons.  Why can't we emulate the good parts of MLB?  College use metal, pro use wood!  Wouldn't people like to see a pro actually have to hit the driver on the sweet spot? 

[jeffwarne]

i don't care if the numbers go up or down, but I think Scott and Langer are credits to the game, and like seeing them succeed.
I do think putting innovations don't cause golf course changes, and are not an "advantage" for most people, or they'd be doing it.(I certainly don't)
I do know hot , light, long titanium drivers and superballs ARE an advantage because everyone uses them, and the (agreed misguided) effect of them is to enlarge the length of the playing field, while reducing its width, and surrounding what's left with silly ball eating rough. (at the championship level at first, followed by misguided copycat clubs)

It's like legalizing steroids in baseball "to grow the game" and reacting by moving third base and first base 30 feet closer to second base

[BCowan]

Jeff,

    They reduced widths way before the ProV and Ti drivers.  As long as you have width, long rough is great okay for a major championship.  you have marshalls.  I believe many of the college kids are using the anchor, but I'm not sure

    With the expense golf balls are and you talk about growing the game by going back to a ballata that lasts 4 holes.  The overlook of the roids in MLB has nothing to do with using wood.  That was MLB trying to attract the lowest common denominator and the reason i stopped watching MLB.  

   Lack of Persimmons woods and Pace of Play are some of the biggest pro issues imho.  

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

    They reduced widths way before the ProV and Ti drivers.  As long as you have width, long rough is great okay for a major championship.  you have marshalls.  I believe many of the college kids are using the anchor, but I'm not sure

    With the expense golf balls are and you talk about growing the game by going back to a ballata that lasts 4 holes.  The overlook of the roids in MLB has nothing to do with using wood.  That was MLB trying to attract the lowest common denominator and the reason i stopped watching MLB.  

   Lack of Persimmons woods and Pace of Play are some of the biggest pro issues imho.  

Ben,
Again, I'm not talking about growing the game.
Seems the game used to grow before we all started talking about growing it.
Surely you are aware a higher spin ball could be made that wasn't "balata" and was highly durable.
Forget steroids for a minute and pretend I introduced a baseball that went 10% farther and substitute that in my example of fair ball reduction

[BCowan]

Jeff,

    They reduced widths way before the ProV and Ti drivers.  As long as you have width, long rough is great okay for a major championship.  you have marshalls.  I believe many of the college kids are using the anchor, but I'm not sure

    With the expense golf balls are and you talk about growing the game by going back to a ballata that lasts 4 holes.  The overlook of the roids in MLB has nothing to do with using wood.  That was MLB trying to attract the lowest common denominator and the reason i stopped watching MLB.  

   Lack of Persimmons woods and Pace of Play are some of the biggest pro issues imho.  

Ben,
Again, I'm not talking about growing the game.
Seems the game used to grow before we all started talking about growing it.
Surely you are aware a higher spin ball could be made that wasn't "balata" and was highly durable.
Forget steroids for a minute and pretend I introduced a baseball that went 10% farther and substitute that in my example of fair ball reduction

I should have changed it to, stopping core golfers from quitting or playing significantly less.  I believe that makes sense with a durable ballata ( i was only kidding you).  The question is in baseball is if the ball could go 10% farther with Wood?  We already know that Pro V1 and Persimmons don't go all that far (otta the park).  So having a ball that goes shorter, but Ti heads that have a sweet spot the size of a grapefruit is okay with you?  I'd leave ball alone, and change woods for pro's to persimmons (possibly top AM events (all up to their org's)).  I think it takes much skill to shape a ball with Wood than Ti!  Let AM's use current stuff (free the market).  If clubs get too hot, Private Golf clubs can decide their Club championships (championship flight) with persimmons too, if people are shooting 63 all day

[Sean_A]

Don't watch tournaments played on 7500 yard courses.  Don't buy from Taylor Made, or from the USGA, or from anyone else that supports the push to lengthen golf.  Encourage others to boycott them.

I have been saying this for years and people have generally said I'm nuts.  Once golfers fully realize the power in the game rests with them and not manufacturers, or ruling bodies, then, and only then will a true roll back ever have a chance to take effect.  If you don't believe me, how do we explain the hickory movement?  Why are folks willingly giving up their big dawg equipment?  I know it ain't many people, but at least these folks are doing something rather than waiting for the USGA to act.  One day people may get it, but first they have to stop buying the new equipment.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Don't watch tournaments played on 7500 yard courses.  Don't buy from Taylor Made, or from the USGA, or from anyone else that supports the push to lengthen golf.  Encourage others to boycott them.

I have been saying this for years and people have generally said I'm nuts.  Once golfers fully realize the power in the game rests with them and not manufacturers, or ruling bodies, then, and only then will a true roll back ever have a chance to take effect.  If you don't believe me, how do we explain the hickory movement?  Why are folks willingly giving up their big dawg equipment?  I know it ain't many people, but at least these folks are doing something rather than waiting for the USGA to act.  One day people may get it, but first they have to stop buying the new equipment.

Ciao

Sean,
All very true, but I believe a multifaceted approach is best.
If a bunch of hickory golfers bitch to the USGA, not much will happen.
If competition players using modern using modern equipment let the USGA know it's not right, it's another credible data point worth considering.

I champion the anchoring because I don't use it and thus have no appearance of conflict.
If Bubba Watson and Tome Watson tell the USGA modern equipment is causing many problems in the game and its courses, that's another data point worth considering. If top teachers tell the USGA the same, all the better.
To me, the more people who speak out who have a potential benefit from hot equipment the better. (I'm 51, can use the yardage, and can use the equipment contracts, but hate the effect on the game)

a year ago I was convinced there would never be any action to bifucate or rollback.
anecdotally, I'd say there's a better chance now than a year ago.

[Steve Lang]

 

Hey, there's 1200 tireless volunteers...

from http://www.usga.org/about_usga/leadership/leadership-committees/

USGA LEADERSHIP

The United States Golf Association (USGA) has served as the national governing body of golf since its formation in 1894 by representatives of five American golf clubs. Since then, the USGA has grown to more than 700,000 members, 9,000 member clubs, 1,200 tireless volunteers and a staff of 300, with a leadership team that represents some of the most experienced professionals in the game.


   Executive Committee
The USGA’s 15-member volunteer group that serves as the Association’s executive policy-making board
   Senior Leadership Team
The USGA’s senior management team who direct and oversee the Association’s
day-to-day operations
   Regional Affairs Team
The USGA’s nationwide network of professionals who serve as key liaisons between the Association and State and Regional Golf Associations
   USGA Women's Committee
The 14-member committee that helps conduct the USGA's women's championships

[Mike Bowen]

The funny thing about equipment innovation and it's affects on the PGA tour is that it has had a numbing affect of skilled ball strikers.  A piece of equipment that makes miss-hits better is by definition leveling the playing field.

If I were Tiger or Rory, I would be pissed that the hybrid was ever invented.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I'd leave ball alone, and change woods for pro's to persimmons (possibly top AM events (all up to their org's)).  

Nail firmly hit by hammer on head.

It's not the ball that's the problem; it's the drivers! No-one has an issue with pros being able to hit 2-irons 270 yards. It's the drivers routinely hitting 350 yards+ that are rendering old courses obsolete.

Limiting the size or material of drivers would seem to answer the main problems. I'm thinking of something like a current 3-wood but with less loft.

[Tony_Muldoon]

#IS it just me...wouldn't golf be more fun game if shots didnt' go further than say  about 240 yards?   As a 56 year old( typical golfer?) I have my eyes checked regualrly and I'm told I have good vision and unless the light is absolutely perfect, that's about the furthest I can see. Seeing where your ball finishes ought to be a part of he game.



Duncan I think there's a serious lack of logic in your thinking. It doesn't matter what you call the club if you allow designs that can propel the ball greater than 270 yards. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

But in the world of the typical golfer no-one routinely hits the ball further than 250 yards anyway, even with a modern driver.

It is at the level of the pro and elite amateur that the problems are.

[Patrick_Mucci]

But in the world of the typical golfer no-one routinely hits the ball further than 250 yards anyway, even with a modern driver.

It is at the level of the pro and elite amateur that the problems are.

Duncan,

Yesterday I played with a 16 handicap who hit 300 yard drives, so I'm not so sure that the distance issue is confined to PGA Tour Pros and elite amateurs.

[BCowan]

But in the world of the typical golfer no-one routinely hits the ball further than 250 yards anyway, even with a modern driver.

It is at the level of the pro and elite amateur that the problems are.

Duncan,

Yesterday I played with a 16 handicap who hit 300 yard drives, so I'm not so sure that the distance issue is confined to PGA Tour Pros and elite amateurs.

What did the 16 handi shoot?  Ask the 16 handi if he played a ball that only went 250, if he would still enjoy playing golf?  Nothing wrong with a 16 hitting it 300, he isn't playing in national and state tourneys.  Let him have fun.  I bet he doesn't work on his putting much.   .  Not everyone who plays cares whether or not they interact with the arch. 

[Dave Doxey]

Dave,

There is already limitations on equipment.  To say the "free market" is silly when you speak of a highly regulated sport. 

Limitation is quite different from rollback.  Manufacturers have obviously been able to work around limitations to create demand.  Any rollback would seriously impact the market, as perceived by manufacturers.  There are even instances, such as Calloway's non-conforming driver, where they chose to ignore limitation.

My mention of free market was related to club decisions on whether or not to lengthen/change their course.  Regulation is not relevant here.  If a membership wants to chase equipment improvements by toughening the course, so be it.  I would imagine that some clubs will decide to not go that route.  The free market for course changes is controlled by the membership.

Personally, I don't care what score pros achieve on a course.  TV golf and what I play are two different games.  If courses were left alone, pro golf would become a driver-wedge game and lose some of it's viewer appeal.  That might encourage PGA Tour to get behind equipment limitations.

[Jud_T]

To say that courses won't lengthen themselves when real estate is available and difficulty is one of the rating criteria is wishful thinking at best.  Everyone wants to keep up with the Joneses, whether they can own up to it or not.

[John Connolly]

To say that courses won't lengthen themselves when real estate is available and difficulty is one of the rating criteria is wishful thinking at best.  Everyone wants to keep up with the Joneses, whether they can own up to it or not.

Spot on. Reading through our club's archives from the early 1900's, I noted the Board was concerned about the distance this new Haskell ball was capable of. Their solution - "we need to lengthen the course". And, for the most part, clubs continue to do so until they they run out of money or real estate. I'm doubtful clubs and the playing public will be able to sustain a "boycott" of equipment or refuse to lengthen their courses. Again, I'm speaking for most clubs/players - I'm sure many here will cite examples where their home course resisted the lenghthening trend. That instinct is just not omnipresent.

[RussBaribault]

I just read a post recently how golf industry is in a downturn, rounds are down and courses are closing. Seems to me a lot of individuals in this discussion group get on their high horse and wants things to be something they are not or want to go back to some bygone era. I have news for those people, it isn’t going to happen. Nothing ever remains the same. Until the average golfer starts hitting the driver 270 and shooting around par consistently, you people have nothing to worry about…get over yourselves. It’s the same thing with the long putter, another stupid decision and curtailing golf balls and other equipment to somehow "manage" the game is so dumb.

[Dave Doxey]

More thoughts..

It’s nice to think that a grass-roots campaign could cause golf governing bodies to roll back equipment, but it can’t happen.

Because those of us in this forum are a very small minority. 

Because the “average” golfers are buying the hot equipment and listening to the marketing. (I played just yesterday with a guy who had an expensive rangefinder that he used on every shot, and had TWO $400 drivers in his bag – identical with different lofts, yet seldom got a ball airborne or over 150 yards.  He lost at least a dozen Pro-V’s. Even the “magic tees” that he must have gotten from a late night Golf Channel infomercial, didn’t save him. A target golf consumer!)

Because PGA players are not going to rally for equipment rollback – they get paid by the manufacturers.

Because the governing bodies fear manufacturers inventing different variations of the game.  Industry golf sellers have already started with “Foot Golf” “Top Golf” “Flog”, etc.  In addition to fear of legal battles, there is always the fear that governing bodies lose control of governance of these game variants.

Using baseball limits as an example is flawed.  The market dollars for baseball equipment is insignificant to that for golf equipment.  How much money do people spend on baseball bats?  Have you ever seen a baseball player endorsing baseball equipment or wearing a hat or shirt with the bat manufacturer name on it?

Suggestions..

The best hope that I can see is to hold the line on course lengthening.  Club members doing this is the only chance, albeit slim.  If courses stay the same, pro & top amateur golf starts to look dumb, with driver-wedge every hole.  That might emphasize the need to control equipment.  When PGA revenue starts to be affected by fans losing interest, that would drive home the need to change equipment to make the pro game interesting again.  Maybe even bifurcation, as the pro game and what the average golfing/equipment buying slob plays are two different games.

Course raters are a small group, with a majority who love the tradition of the game.  Perhaps they can be influenced to not use course length so heavily as a ranking factor.  Rate the course on appeal to the average golfer, not to the professionals.

[Sean_A]

My mention of free market was related to club decisions on whether or not to lengthen/change their course.  Regulation is not relevant here.  If a membership wants to chase equipment improvements by toughening the course, so be it.  I would imagine that some clubs will decide to not go that route.  The free market for course changes is controlled by the membership.

Personally, I don't care what score pros achieve on a course.  TV golf and what I play are two different games.  If courses were left alone, pro golf would become a driver-wedge game and lose some of it's viewer appeal.  That might encourage PGA Tour to get behind equipment limitations.

Something else I have been saying for years. Memberships alter courses, not USGA regulations or lack thereof.  You wanna blame someone for lengthened courses, blame owners, members, architects, guys who purchase jacked up equipment...in other words, blame yourself.  Its wonderful to point fingers at blue blazers, but then its always easier to blame someone else for our ills.    

Once folks stop watching the pros and they lose sponsorship, things may change.  Again, the power lies with the consumer.  Besides, what is the point of watching golf if all that you are gonna do is bitch about slow play, the long ball, irons off the tee....do yourself and me a favour, stop watching golf  

Ciao

[John Connolly]

I just read a post recently how golf industry is in a downturn, rounds are down and courses are closing. Seems to me a lot of individuals in this discussion group get on their high horse and wants things to be something they are not or want to go back to some bygone era. I have news for those people, it isn’t going to happen. Nothing ever remains the same. Until the average golfer starts hitting the driver 270 and shooting around par consistently, you people have nothing to worry about…get over yourselves. It’s the same thing with the long putter, another stupid decision and curtailing golf balls and other equipment to somehow "manage" the game is so dumb.

I would agree there is a small chance there willl be any kind of roll back. Static industries rarely survive. Having said that, I'm not sure it's accurate to characterize this discussion as being had by people who can't "get over themselves". The USGA has a history of implementing equipment limitations so advocating for additional measures is not dumb - it's actually a bit learned. For a group of enthusiasts so fond of great old golf courses, it's natural to think we'd be advocates for their functional preservation. But, alas, it is probably foolhardy to think the industry will change dramatically to protect facilities from the technological onslaught. Maybe one day, at the very least, great unchanging classic courses would be able to open up for museum tours. Because driver-wedge to a 400 yard par 4 can get old and if you think many players aren't getting frustrated with that you haven't been paying attention.

[jeffwarne]

I just read a post recently how golf industry is in a downturn, rounds are down and courses are closing. Seems to me a lot of individuals in this discussion group get on their high horse and wants things to be something they are not or want to go back to some bygone era. I have news for those people, it isn’t going to happen. Nothing ever remains the same. Until the average golfer starts hitting the driver 270 and shooting around par consistently, you people have nothing to worry about…get over yourselves. It’s the same thing with the long putter, another stupid decision and curtailing golf balls and other equipment to somehow "manage" the game is so dumb.

Is all of this coincidental?
The scale is out of whack and keeps getting bigger.(to be fair, it has for hundreds of years)
How can rounds be faster if the field keeps growing in length and shrinking in width-all in reaction to how far the ball travels (whether clubs or ball) More miles to walk and more non maintained area to search.
The fact that many who hit it 300 don't play any better isn't a reason to not control the scale of the game.
They're the ones we're waiting for while they look for their 300 yard drive.
No one is saying golf is too easy-at any level-just too big

Dave,
I see your point and hope you're wrong.
Should complete tools such as the target consumer you describe playing with drive the bus on decision making?
My point is it's OK if tools like that buy less stuff-I'm more worried about core golfers quitting or playing less as opposed to knuckleheads like that.

[Jud_T]

My mention of free market was related to club decisions on whether or not to lengthen/change their course.  Regulation is not relevant here.  If a membership wants to chase equipment improvements by toughening the course, so be it.  I would imagine that some clubs will decide to not go that route.  The free market for course changes is controlled by the membership.

Personally, I don't care what score pros achieve on a course.  TV golf and what I play are two different games.  If courses were left alone, pro golf would become a driver-wedge game and lose some of it's viewer appeal.  That might encourage PGA Tour to get behind equipment limitations.

Something else I have been saying for years. Memberships alter courses, not USGA regulations or lack thereof.  You wanna blame someone for lengthened courses, blame owners, members, architects, guys who purchase jacked up equipment...in other words, blame yourself.  Its wonderful to point fingers at blue blazers, but then its always easier to blame someone else for our ills.    

Once folks stop watching the pros and they lose sponsorship, things may change.  Again, the power lies with the consumer.  Besides, what is the point of watching golf if all that you are gonna do is bitch about slow play, the long ball, irons off the tee....do yourself and me a favour, stop watching golf  

Ciao

Sean,

That's akin to telling your dog he should eat quinoa instead of brisket cause it's better for him.